Citation Nr: 25004167 Decision Date: 03/27/25 Archive Date: 03/27/25 DOCKET NO. 12-20 845 DATE: March 27, 2025 REMANDED A rating greater than 10 percent for service-connected right knee instability prior to September 7, 2016, is remanded. A rating greater than 10 percent for left knee strain with osteoarthritis and patellofemoral chondromalacia prior to September 7, 2016, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the United States Army from August 1986 to August 1990 and from January 1991 to March 1991. These issues were previously before the Board. In May 2024, the Board remanded the appeal to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. Specifically, the Board directed the AOJ to obtain an addendum medical opinion estimating the severity of the Veteran's right knee instability beginning from July 2015 based on the Veteran's description of the flare-ups during the July 2015, September 2016, and April 2019 VA examinations; and estimate, in degrees, the range of motion for the Veteran's left knee disability from July 2015. In December 2024, the AOJ obtained an addendum opinion estimating the Veteran's right knee instability to be "moderate" in September 2016 and April 2019. Regarding the left knee, the VA examiner estimated that the range of motion during flare-ups would be flexion of around 60 degrees and extension to 15 degrees in September 2016, and in around 55 degrees flexion and 10 degrees flexion in April 2019. In a January 2025 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), the AOJ granted a 20 percent rating from September 7, 2016, a 10 percent rating from March 27, 2019, and a 30 percent rating from December 26, 2024, for the Veteran's left knee disability. For the Veteran's right knee disability, the AOJ assigned a 20 percent rating from September 7, 2016. The Board has recharacterized the claims for clarity. The AOJ did not obtain an opinion on the severity of the Veteran's knee disabilities from July 2015, however. 1. A rating greater than 10 percent for service-connected right knee instability is remanded. 2. A rating greater than 10 percent for left knee strain with osteoarthritis and patellofemoral chondromalacia is remanded. Compliance with remand directives by the originating agency is not optional or discretionary. The Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure remand compliance. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Also, when a VA examination is provided or when a VA opinion is obtained, the VA must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). As discussed above, in its May 2024 remand, the Board specifically directed the AOJ to obtain medical opinion estimating the severity of the Veteran's knee disabilities from July 2015. The AOJ, however, only obtained estimates from September 2016, and did not fully comply with remand directives. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum VA medical opinion regarding the severity of the Veteran's left and right knee disabilities. A copy of both this remand and the May 2024 Board remand must be provided to the medical practitioner authoring the medical opinion. Specifically, the examiner must: (a.) Estimate the severity of the Veteran's right knee instability beginning from July 2015. (b.) Estimate, in degrees, the range of motion for the Veteran's left knee disability from July 2015. The Veteran's descriptions of his flare-ups must be regarded as accurate and true. The examiner must discuss any contrary medical opinions of record, including the December 2024 medical opinions. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for his or her opinion(s) on the examination report. If any of the above requested opinions cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and provide a rationale for such conclusion. Paulette Vance Burton Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board H.S. Yun The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.